David Seymour is Senior Policy Analyst with the Frontier Centre
for Public Policy.

OPINION

WELFARE WITHOUT THE WELFARE STATE:
A POST-CHRISTMAS STORY *

by David Seymour

Christmas is now behind us, along with another seasonal wave of feel-good
stories featuring voluntary charity. We’ve all read the stories: One
community raised money for a sick mother requiring an operation;
Churches across the country prepared meals to help the needy afford
Christmas cheer; generous companies trumpeted their donations of
presents to children who would have otherwise gone without. The
federal government, meanwhile, was content to issue press statements
claiming Canadian citizenship for Santa Claus.

Now is
the time to reflect on some of the lessons we can learn from this outpouring of
goodwill. Is there any reason the “Spirit of Christmas” cannot replace, or at
least complement, sterile and banal public policy debates in the search for
solutions to some of our intractable problems? Why should the normal run of
things be banal public policy debates in the first place?

In 1860, Great Britain
faced the same challenges Canada faces today, albeit in a much poorer and more
prudish society. Differences in wealth and earning power were pitted against a
humanitarian desire that all people have at least some basic level of dignity.
Unemployment and illness brutally befell some but not others, for reasons that
could not be anticipated. The conviction grew that Britain’s continuing ascent
to superpower status was dependent on widespread literacy and numeracy, along
with the belief that the education of millions of children would require a
massive injection of resources.

Jonathan Bartholomew, in
his book The
Welfare State We’re In, relates how Victorians faced these challenges in
a way contemporary Canadians glimpse only at Christmas time―that is, welfare
without the welfare state.

Friendly Societies and
Unions effectively acted as voluntary insurance collectives, doling out
contributions from members made in good times during bad times. While schools
were almost entirely private, in 1861 it was estimated that 95.5% of children
attended, and this was probably an underestimation. As well, by 1865 99% of
British Navy recruits were literate.

The friendly societies
often employed doctors directly answerable to their patients who, as society
members, were also their employers. Charitably-funded hospitals were making
advances in research that would form the basis of modern healthcare. The average
household contributed 10% of its income to charitable causes. In their voluntary
and charitable approach to social welfare at least, the Victorians felt the
Christmas Spirit every week.

"In his book The
Welfare State We’re In, Jonathan Bartholomew relates how
Victorians faced these challenges in a way contemporary Canadians
glimpse only at Christmas time―that is, welfare without the welfare
state."

It is good to remember,
as well, that, compared to us, Victorians were unimaginably
poor. Workers midway through the industrial revolution
produced about as much wealth in a year as modern Canadians
do in a fortnight. Imagine if someone from the Victorian era
could be revived today: what would she think of a world
where people are 30 times wealthier, yet contribute only 1%
of their income to charity, rather than the 10% she is used
to, where 0.5% truancy rates seem an impossible goal, and
ordinary citizens feel that the fight against poverty is
someone else’s responsibility? What happened, she would ask?

The welfare state
happened. Following the lead of other countries (yes, Canada
has been a late adopter of the welfare state), Canadian
governments have taxed its citizens out of the means and the
moral obligation to help others, imposing their own programs
instead.

For
example, the Northwest Territories Act of 1875 established a
ruling Council that, despite initial reluctance, gradually
warmed to the government’s role in funding and managing
Prairie education. Today non-government education is a
luxury only the rich can enjoy. In 1962 Saskatchewan adopted
a state monopoly health system based on the British National
Health Service of 1944, completely expunging healthcare of
any community involvement. Nowadays every anomaly in income
statistics is seen as a niche for some sort of program.
After our southern neighbours declared a war on poverty, we
followed. As one not-too-cynical pundit lamented, we
declared war and poverty won.

Despite hundreds of
billions spent on government programs, poverty has endured
during the most prosperous era in human history. Disgruntled
citizens castigate all three levels of government for their
health, education and income security programs which are not
serving their needs, needs which a one-week-a-year
rediscovery of community spirit effectively alleviates. But
lobby groups continue to express the opinion that just a
little bit more government power and spending will solve the
problem.

Times such as Christmas
can reveal that there are other answers to our problems. At
Christmas we glimpse welfare without the welfare state. By
comparing the welfare state as a cold interloper against a
much warmer order that once worked, a much more imaginative
welfare and poverty debate becomes possible.

* This article was first published on
WesternStandard.ca
on January 5, 2009. It is reproduced here
courtesy of the WS.